|
Post by strutsagget on Jun 18, 2018 5:33:49 GMT
Rolling dice has no bearance whatsoever on the interpretation of rules. In various circumstances, one has to separate dice one way or the other, either in time by rolling dice sequentially, or physically by using coloured dice. Fast dicing is an amenity, not an argument. I know and agree with you. It still feels like it might be a better game experience rolling them all together. I have only played lizzies once. But we just got 3 new Lizzie armies in the group so future will tell if we house rule.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 18, 2018 5:49:49 GMT
That seems again a rather idiosyncratic and obfuscating reading of the rules. I fail to see that "a model with this special rule" is somehow key. Other than stating the obvious, what is the point? Even in your own reasoning, it does not work. Very well, the model gets an additional Attack However, that Attack is not specified as a supporting attack, and a model in the second rank can only make supporting attacks - of which you can only have one. Unless, of course, specified otherwise, which the PF rule clearly does not.
This is not different from a magic weapon that grants you additional Attacks. It is not because that magic weapon is listed in an AB that you can claim it supersedes ipso facto the supporting attack rule, or, for that matter, the rule that Attacks cannot exceed 10, unless the description of that magic weapon would actually say as much.
Indeed, why stop at special rules or unusual effects? In the same vein, I might claim the following: Karl Franz has 4 Attacks on his profile. The BRB says "regardless of the number of Attacks on his profile," but his profile is in the AB, and AB beats BRB; therefore Karl Franz gets 4 supporting attacks. If you don't buy that, you shouldn't buy the other one either. But if you do buy that, you'll buy anything, and there is little point in a discussion. The "a model with this special rule" segment is important because it specifies that the rule applies to EVERY model in the unit (who has the rule), regardless of their position in the unit or proximity to the enemies in close combat. Of course, only models that make an attack could ever trigger the rule because a model can't roll a 6 to hit if it is not eligible to make an attack in the first place. As a result, we have a situation where the Predatory Fighter rule applies to every model in the unit who can make a close combat attack (as long as they have the Predatory Fighter rule). I would actually agree with your viewpoint if the Predatory Fighter rule stated that models rolling a 6 To Hit would get 1+ attack. In such a case, the Predatory Fighter rule would still give them an attack, but they would be unable to utilize it as per the BRB supporting attack rule which limits them to 1 attack. Here we would not have a contradiction between the AB and BRB. This covers weapons that grant extra attacks, the Frenzy rule, having a profile with more than one attack, spells that grant additional attacks, etc. In all these cases, there is nothing to contradict the BRB supporting attack rule, which prevents you from utilizing the attack bonuses your models were conferred. However, the Predatory Fighter rule does not work in the same way as in the examples you provided. "Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit in Close Combat, it immediately makes another attack, roll To Hit and To Wound as normal". In this case the model isn't merely gaining "1+ attacks" (which could not be used by models in supporting ranks), the rule directly tells you that all these models (regardless of if they are making supporting attacks or not) make an additional attack. Now we have a case where the BRB says one thing, but the army book says the opposite. This is where the AB > BRB rule triggers and gives precedence to the Lizardmen army book. According to the Predatory Fighter rule we get this: [model with PF] + [rolling a 6 To Hit in close combat from an attack that itself did not itself derive from PF] = [immediate additional attack] That's how it reads using pure RAW. As long as the two criteria above are met, the model immediately makes another Attack regardless if they are in base contact or making a supporting attack. I recognize that the difference between "+1 attack" and "immediately makes another Attack" is a subtle one, but it makes all the difference in the world when it comes to working alongside the BRB or directly contradicting it. In the Karl Franz example you detailed, the army book only specifies that he has 4 attacks on his profile. It does nothing to specify that he can actually use them when making supporting attacks (which he obviously can't do). If the army book instead had a rule that read "Karl Franz always makes 4 attacks in close combat", then it would contradict and subsequently overrule the BRB rule limiting supporting attacks to 1.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 18, 2018 7:42:31 GMT
That seems just obfuscation of the issue by rather irrelevant argument. The supporting attack rule does not care one bit what kind of bonus Attacks are generated, only that they are bonus Attacks generated by special rules or other unusual effects.
To repeat once more the rule: "To represent this, he can only ever make a single Attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on his profile, or any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects."
Now it is indisputable that the PF grants a bonus Attack from a special rule, and that the PF rule does not specify an exemption to the supporting attack rule. Therefore, PF is not exempt.
As I have already demonstrated above, invoking a conflict here renders itself absurd. If by the simple fact that bonus Attacks from a special rule are exempt, because that special rule is in an AB, then the same applies to the number of Attacks on the profile, or bonus Attacks from other unusual effects (spells, magic weapons...). Your comment regarding the KF profile Attacks does not hold water, because the profile precisely "shows the number of times a creature attacks during close combat" (BRB p. 3). In your own reasoning, since supporting attacks are CC attacks, KF can make 4 supporting attacks. This conflicts with the BRB, but since the profile is in the AB, the AB trumps the BRB.
Indeed, the same conflict would exist between the basic rule and any advanced rule, in which case the advanced rule trumps the basic rule. In effect, the supporting attack rule would become unplayable.
I think we can all agree that a rule must be playable, and that any argument that renders a rule unplayable must be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Jun 18, 2018 8:51:24 GMT
Surely "immediately makes another attack" falls under the blanket of "any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules.."
It is after all an extra attack generated by a special rule.
I do not especially enjoy rules like this which mean you have to separately roll dice as others have mentioned. TLoS is annoying in this way too, it slows the game down. Useful to have sets of different coloured dice
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Jun 18, 2018 12:36:57 GMT
Yes, that is because I try to challenge my own position and look for arguments pro and contra. As an observer, that's my favorite part. Love this thread. xoxoxo
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Jun 18, 2018 12:39:48 GMT
Do Saurus in the supporting ranks benefit from the potential extra attack? No.
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Jun 18, 2018 12:42:01 GMT
Saurus Warriors and Temple Guard are rarely taken in horde formation. Uh? Wut? Rarely? That vastly conflicts with my observations, firsthand experience, and second hand experience. I would guess that I see Saurus (Sauri) and Temple Guard taken in horde formation 60% of the time.
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Jun 18, 2018 12:46:37 GMT
Saurus Warriors and Temple Guard are rarely taken in horde formation. Uh? Wut? Rarely? That vastly conflicts with my observations, firsthand experience, and second hand experience. I would guess that I see Saurus (Sauri) and Temple Guard taken in horde formation 60% of the time. Really? I don't think I ever recall seeing them taken as a horde. They're simply too big and unwieldy and also expensive! Not to mention that once the Slann goes in there, that becomes one of the most expensive bunkers in the game. Lol, I should try it out in a game though! You've got my list building senses tingling!
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Jun 18, 2018 13:06:27 GMT
No worries. Different stuff is popular in different areas. Regional metagames and army composition vibes are a thing.
I actually don't often see the Slann hidden in the giant Saurus bunker... A lot of Lizard players let the Slann go free form. On his own... floating, lounging. That's just what I see.
My opinion: A unit of 40 Plain Jane Saurus 10 wide x 4 deep is mucho cost effective and a very real threat. Even worse (if you're the opponent) it doesn't need anything buffing it - spells, a BSB, a hero, a magic standard, etc. It's just a big good block of dudes.
**I think I once argued that Plain Jane Saurus are the 2nd best CORE choice in the game. Right behind a Plain Jane Dwarf Warrior with Great Weapon.
I will pause and let any actual Lizard players on this here forum weight in.
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Jun 18, 2018 13:28:08 GMT
Now, plain Warriors, is something I run in horde formation all the time! I take 40 (like you said) and also take 3 Jungle Swarms with a Bastiladon with the Arc of Sotec right behind them, growing their number. As soon as the JS and Warriors get into the same combat, suddenly the Warriors have poison attacks. Dang. Now, all those 6's you rolled to hit are not only generating more attacks, but they are automatic wounds too! It's a really nice trick and also really helps protect their flank since JS are Unbreakable and have to be killed to a man. After that, there's a Bastiladon that needs to be killed. Your basically don't have to worry about that flank getting attacked.
The Temple Guard are another story. I've found (for me at least) Lizardmen work best when sent in waves. Skinks first, then Warriors, then Temple Guard. Monsters like Stegadons can rush up and crash in to tie up or lend support. Flyers can rush backfields, and Salamanders can be your artillery fire.
This has me thinking that I need to have an experimental game between my 4000 pt Ogre list and a 4000 pt L-men list with a horde of TG!
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 19, 2018 2:58:47 GMT
That seems just obfuscation of the issue by rather irrelevant argument. The supporting attack rule does not care one bit what kind of bonus Attacks are generated, only that they are bonus Attacks generated by special rules or other unusual effects. To repeat once more the rule: "To represent this, he can only ever make a single Attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on his profile, or any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects." Now it is indisputable that the PF grants a bonus Attack from a special rule, and that the PF rule does not specify an exemption to the supporting attack rule. Therefore, PF is not exempt. As I have already demonstrated above, invoking a conflict here renders itself absurd. If by the simple fact that bonus Attacks from a special rule are exempt, because that special rule is in an AB, then the same applies to the number of Attacks on the profile, or bonus Attacks from other unusual effects (spells, magic weapons...). Your comment regarding the KF profile Attacks does not hold water, because the profile precisely "shows the number of times a creature attacks during close combat" (BRB p. 3). In your own reasoning, since supporting attacks are CC attacks, KF can make 4 supporting attacks. This conflicts with the BRB, but since the profile is in the AB, the AB trumps the BRB. Indeed, the same conflict would exist between the basic rule and any advanced rule, in which case the advanced rule trumps the basic rule. In effect, the supporting attack rule would become unplayable. I think we can all agree that a rule must be playable, and that any argument that renders a rule unplayable must be wrong. "The supporting attack rule does not care one bit what kind of bonus Attacks are generated, only that they are bonus Attacks generated by special rules or other unusual effects. " True, but by the same vein the Predatory Fighter (PF) rule does not care one bit about the supporting attack rule. Everything needed to accurately play the PF rule is already contained within the rule itself. I agree with you that the BRB disallows extra attacks from the supporting ranks (no matter the source), but the PF rule instructs the player otherwise. The PF rule does indeed exempt the player from the BRB supporting attack limitation. The PF rule effects all models as long as the model: - has the PF rule
- rolls a 6 To Hit in Close Combat (with the caveat that PF bonus attacks cannot trigger further PF attacks)
Those are the only two criteria required to trigger the rule. Those criteria as they are written in the army book encompass models in base-to-base contact as well as those making supporting attacks.
So once again we arrive at AB > BRB. As I stated in my previous post, other army book sources of extra attacks are quite different from those in the PF rule. Your Karl Franz counter point does not hold true. Nowhere in the army book does it state how his 4 profile attacks are to be used or when they are to be used. You must refer to the BRB in order utilize his attacks. Once in the BRB ecosystem, the supporting attack rule would limit his supporting attacks to 1. So in this case one BRB rule is overriding another BRB rule (namely the supporting attack rule overrides how attacks in a profile are to be used). Here we have BRB vs BRB. In the PF situation you do not have BRB vs BRB, you have BRB vs AB... and AB wins. As I said previously, if Karl had a special rule that stated that he "always makes 4 attacks in close combat" then he would get to make those attacks even from a supporting rank.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 19, 2018 3:03:35 GMT
Surely "immediately makes another attack" falls under the blanket of "any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules.." It is after all an extra attack generated by a special rule. I completely agree with you. The BRB is telling you not to make any additional attacks (just like the ones via the Predatory Fighter (PF) rule). However, the army book is telling you that you can (because all models with the rule that roll a 6 to hit in CC get to immediately make another attack)... these criteria are satisfied by models making supporting attacks. If the "AB > BRB" rule did not exist, I would agree that the PF rule would be confined to models in base-to-base only. My argument has never been that the BRB supporting attack limitation does not apply to the PF rule, only that the PF rule, being an AB rule, overrides the BRB limitation.
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Jun 19, 2018 9:58:05 GMT
So your logic is that because the rule (predatory fighter) doesn't explicitly forbid you using these extra attacks as supporting attacks, that means they are ok? Because that applies to basically every extra attack generating rule/magic item in the game. Red Fury for instance. So by that logic if you are using an extra attack generated by any rule (in an army book) you get to make more than 1 supporting attack.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 19, 2018 12:40:37 GMT
Exactly, as I have been trying to point out for some time. That the PF special rule does not care for basic rules, and is somehow "self-contained" is simply wrong, as is evident from the use of the term "Attacks." Special rules are always implicitly subject to basic rules, unless they expressis verbis tell us otherwise. That is why the case of KF Attacks on the profile (or the other special rules granting bonus Attacks) is exactly the same as the case of PF. Either the conflict exists in all cases or none.
To create that non-existent conflict between the BRB and the AB, nighbringer has fallen victim to the logical fallacy that because supporting attacks are Attacks, Attacks are supporting attacks. They can be, but do not have to be. Indeed, we know in this case that they are not, because the basic rule tells us that "any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules" cannot be supporting attacks.
Let us compare the [relevant parts of] two rules:
BRB: He can only ever make a single Attack, regardless of ....any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules.
PF: Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To H it in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack.
Now, one can easily see that the PF special rule contradicts the first part of the basic rule, but only the first part. There is nothing in the PF special rule whatsoever that contradicts the second part. Therefore there is no conflict AB versus BRB to be invoked.
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Jun 19, 2018 13:31:00 GMT
Ohhhhhh you got him using legal Latin - Y'all fikked now. Expressis verbis all up in hurrrrr.
|
|